Hi, I recently got a consistent delay from notary tool. I have viewed all your suggestions and understand that it "occasionally" will have further review and take longer time, but then it will be faster. However, in my case, my app although is accepted many times. It is still significantly delay. It is a native macOS app called ConniePad. Whenever I submit, it took me 2 days or more to finish notarise, which significantly affect my business. Could you please have a look on it. For log detail about the time, and the ids: -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-05T22:54:45.815Z id: 998b5aa8-fc9c-4469-98fe-950d815e734e name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-05T21:32:22.679Z id: c7b1ab49-6f46-4998-8d06-2ffe8a180c8f name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T08:39:52.594Z id: aa33d9d0-9d2f-4296-8fc3-d7e0b404596b name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T01:23:31.077Z id: b0333d78-497d-491c-b36c-bdfb64520296 name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T01:17:20.925Z id: 83aa12f2-f1bb-457f-940a-4c2281cf8a5f name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T01:12:52.932Z id: 0a921069-fb37-469a-bfb0-6be82e9320ba name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T01:03:30.584Z id: a607fe3c-d10f-43d6-a184-e97df7b632fd name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T00:52:47.322Z id: c42d0ca0-db8a-4431-b5b4-646ccfcad003 name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T00:28:18.626Z id: 7ef8777f-7add-4440-abb5-3c0b19cf92d4 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Invalid -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-03T00:24:37.320Z id: 36bb1285-0aeb-4c48-b23c-fac737a3d93f name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Invalid -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T23:59:27.940Z id: bb4578a5-a67b-49e8-afd0-a9d707c10091 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T08:51:38.295Z id: 93ff89f4-98d3-45ac-9ee8-9483726a9666 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T08:19:13.762Z id: 9e4a62df-3d8a-4cfa-ae9e-56ff35ffe137 name: ConniePad-ConverterTool.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T04:15:34.508Z id: 7ee43b74-f73f-462a-bb3d-f6bc53b1cb80 name: ConniePad-ConverterTool.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T02:11:53.312Z id: d675e8f6-dc30-48e9-9269-9bc376f1b29e name: ConniePad-ConverterTool.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-02T01:30:32.768Z id: 9901f125-4355-4812-936b-97578ac2de2f name: ConniePad-ConverterTool.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-04-01T20:47:26.035Z id: a79265bc-8ad3-4a4b-ae39-150801aa9da9 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-18T22:39:54.189Z id: b808b676-a41c-4536-b4fd-4b567701adcb name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-18T05:21:23.607Z id: 797f5d4f-cd94-4511-9217-11e57c2c7ac3 name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-18T05:18:30.707Z id: c5b5c260-fb7f-4bda-9548-f5b7e57cb2f3 name: ConniePad.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:45:37.831Z id: f24c1017-9171-4796-bf97-ea47ef83f7ce name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:38:17.981Z id: 8dd0ea7e-e810-48f9-a48f-62dcc1406284 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:33:27.649Z id: 704e339a-4d99-4e5e-8414-deb8b26c57ac name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:32:06.925Z id: 8e9b09b6-e061-4361-abc1-0bbd8f33b599 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:26:52.444Z id: 2b564641-eb87-4de9-a59c-ff5362b8bf4a name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:22:04.790Z id: 1aa158bd-0afd-4c60-8e2f-3029388710ab name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T06:17:17.141Z id: 3bffcf1d-2fd7-41ba-b70c-f85837499736 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-17T02:38:47.102Z id: 2dd2fb47-7dff-4f30-b2e0-d8c2bfcf10f5 name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-03-14T03:23:54.671Z id: 5cafb2a9-03e3-468e-b918-ff24b17fceee name: ConniePad.app.zip status: Accepted

This is a continuation of my own old post that became inactive to regain traction. I am trying to resolve issues that arise when distributing a macOS app with a SysExt Network Extension (Packet Tunnel) outside the App Store using a Developer ID Certificate. To directly distribute the app, I start with exporting the .app via Archive in Xcode. After that, I create a new Developer ID provisioning profile for both the app and sysext and replace the embedded ones in the .app package. After I have replaced the provisioning profiles and the have the entitlements files ready, I start signing the frameworks, sysext and parent app. codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>"<app>.app/Contents/Library/SystemExtensions/<sysext>.systemextension/Contents/Frameworks/<fw>.framework/Versions/A/<fw> codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app/Contents/Frameworks/<fw>.framework/ codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements dist-vpn.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app/Contents/Library/SystemExtensions/<sysext>.systemextension/Contents/MacOS/<sysext> codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements dist.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app After validation is successful with codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=4 <app>.app I zip the package, notarize and staple it ditto -c -k --keepParent "<app>.app" "<app>..zip" xcrun notarytool submit <app>.zip --keychain-profile “”<credents> --wait xcrun stapler staple <app>.app After that I finish creating signed and notarized .dmg/.pkg. hdiutil create -volname “<app>” -srcfolder “<app>.app/" -ov -format UDZO ./<app>.dmg codesign --force --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.dmg xcrun notarytool submit <app>.dmg --keychain-profile "<credentials>" --wait xcrun stapler staple <app>.dmg Then when I move the .dmg to a clean system, open the .dmg, move the .app to the Applications folder, the attempt to run it fails with “The application “” can’t be opened.”. When I look into the console, the gatekeeper disallows the launch job with the message:
 86127 debug ProvisioningProfiles taskgated-helper ConfigurationProfiles entitlements: { "com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension" = ( "packet-tunnel-provider-systemextension" ); "com.apple.developer.system-extension.install" = 1; "com.apple.developer.team-identifier" = <teamid>; "keychain-access-groups" = ( “<teamid>.<app>.AppGroup" ); } com.apple.ManagedClient
<app>: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension, keychain-access-groups, com.apple.developer.system-extension.install, com.apple.developer.team-identifier LAUNCH: Runningboard launch of <app> <private> returned RBSRequestErrorFailed, error Error Domain=RBSRequestErrorDomain Code=5 "Launch failed." UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Launch failed., NSUnderlyingError=0x600001a25830 {Error Domain=NSPOSIXErrorDomain Code=153 "Unknown error: 153" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Launchd job spawn failed}}}, so returning -10810

 I went through all possible formats (macOS-Style and iOS-Style App Group IDs) and combinations of appgroups according to the post “App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony”. But none of those work for me. The weird part is that when I try the same steps on different developer account, I am able to get the app running. What can be wrong?

Hi all, I’ve run into a signing/entitlements problem that shows up only on Big Sur (11.x). The very same .app launches perfectly on Monterey (12), Ventura (13), Sonoma (14 / 14.5) and Sequoia (15). Failure on macOS 11 com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (application.app.myapp.exams.566312.566318[1602]): removing service since it exited with consistent failure – OS_REASON_CODESIGNING | When validating …/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app/Contents/MacOS/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1: Code has restricted entitlements, but the validation of its code signature failed. Unsatisfied Entitlements: Binary is improperly signed. Launching from Terminal: open -a "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" kLSNoLaunchPermissionErr (-10826) | Launchd job spawn failed with error: 153 What I’ve already checked # signature itself codesign -dvvv "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => valid, Authority = Developer ID Application, runtime enabled # full deep/strict verification codesign --verify --deep --strict -vvv "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => “satisfies its Designated Requirement” # Gatekeeper assessment spctl --assess --type execute --verbose=4 "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => accepted (override security disabled) # embedded provisioning profile matches bundle ID codesign -d --entitlements :- "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" | plutil -p - security cms -D -i "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile" \ | plutil -extract Entitlements xml1 -o - # => both show the AAC entitlement and everything looks in order # notarization ticket stapler validate "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => “The validate action worked!” Deployment target: MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET = 11.0 Entitlement added: com.apple.developer.automatic-assessment-configuration = true Provisioning profile: generated this year via Developer ID, includes the assessment entitlement and nothing else unusual. Runtime code: we call AEAssessmentSession's network configuration part only on 12 + (guarded with @available(macOS 12.0, *)). Has anyone hit this mismatch on 11.x? Could Big Sur be expecting something older or idk? Any pointers appreciated! Thanks!

The Codesign command adds extended attributes to files that previously had no extended attributes. In my case codesign add following extended attributes to text file in Frrameworks folder: com.apple.cs.CodeDirectory com.apple.cs.CodeRequirements com.apple.cs.CodeRequirements-1 com.apple.cs.CodeSignature Can I somehow prevent this behavior? Thank you.

When building to macOS on GameMaker, I get the error "this identity cannot be used for signing code" when using the Developer ID Installer certificate. The certificate was neither expired nor revoked, but nonetheless I created new certificates to start fresh but am still getting that error. I don't get issues building to iOS via GameMaker, just to macOS. If it makes any difference, I only noticed this issue started happening after I converted my Apple Developer Program account from an individual account to an organizational account, although it was weeks to months before I built to macOS via GameMaker before then, so I don't know if it correlates with that.

Hello everyone, I’m currently developing an Electron application, and I’m trying to properly sign and notarize it for macOS. The notarization process itself seems to complete successfully—the file is accepted without issues. However, when I attempt to staple the notarization ticket to the executable, I consistently get Error 65 with TheStableAndValidateActionFailed. The issue is puzzling because the executable does not change at any point during the process. After facing this issue multiple times in my own project, I decided to test it on a more controlled setup. I followed the steps from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYBLfjT57hU and the instructions from this macos-code-signing-example which have previously worked for others. Yet, even with this setup, I still get the same Error 65. Below, I have attached the verbose logs for reference. I’m trying to understand what could be causing this issue—whether it’s related to certificates, the signing process, or something else entirely. Has anyone encountered a similar problem, and if so, how did you resolve it? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

I’ve developed a macOS app, but I’ve had trouble using a script to fully codesign it and package it into a .dmg file. I was only able to complete codesigning using the third-party app itself—not via command-line scripts. Is it possible to write a script that automates the entire process of codesigning the app? To provide the best user experience for those downloading the app outside of the Mac App Store, is it correct to first package it as a .app and then wrap that into a .dmg file for distribution? Currently, the app is available on the web as a .dmg. When downloaded, it appears in a folder and can be double-clicked to launch. However, macOS displays a warning that it was downloaded from the internet. Can I use a script to remove that quarantine warning? If possible, I’d appreciate a step-by-step explanation and a sample command-line script to: Codesign the app properly Package it into a signed .dmg Remove the quarantine attribute for local testing or distribution Is the reason I was only able to codesign it inside the third-party app due to how that app was built, or can this always be done from the command line?

I have a valid Developer ID Certificate, I've used it to sign an app locally and send the app to other machines of my colleagues to make sure it works and does not get triggered by GateKeeper Now I want to automate the process of signing and notarization on github actions and so I want to export my certificate and upload it there. Initially I tried uploading both the Developer ID Certificate and the G2 CA both as .cer files encoded in base64. But apparently I need my certificate to be in .p12 format When I try to export it from keychain access the option to export as .p12 is disabled. So how can I do it ?

Hi there, We've discovered a problem with our iOS app. We've been attempting to add a Driverkit driver to it, but any time we run the app through Testflight, the driver installs fine, but when we go to enable the driver toggle in the app's settings, the toggle stays on, but in the device logs I can see: could not insert bundle at <private> into manager: <private> As you would expect - this means the driver is not actually enabled and does not respond to a device being connected to the iPad. This does not happen when building & running the app locally, nor does it happen when installing an Ad Hoc build. We also have a different app, not yet shipped. We are able to add the driver to that app without issue. It works after going through Testflight. What we have discovered now is that everything works fine even if we just create an entirely new app with it's own bundle IDs. I should point out that in all cases, we're keeping the capabilities the same for each of these apps/IDs - including the managed capabilities. The bundle IDs that have this problem are older (5 years old or more). It seems like any newer ID will work, but trying to add the driver (and the associated managed capabilities) to an older app/ID results in this vague error message, with no further details. If we inspect the resulting dexts, we can also see that the "Internal requirements code size" is different on the ones that fail. The failing ones have a size of 204 bytes, whereas the working ones all have a size of 220 bytes. Not sure if that's related but it's strikingly consistent. Does this mean there is an issue with older app IDs, and we need Apple to manually refresh them in some way before the driverkit capabilities will work after going through Testflight? We have two apps in this state, both are of the same vintage (~5 years+). We've been battling this issue for months on and off, so would appreciate some help.

We have a rather complex network of dependencies for our application stack and, from it, we create multiple unique executables that are placed into the Contents/MacOS directory of our bundle. MyApp.app `- Contents/ `- Frameworks/... `- MacOS/ `- exec_a `- exec_b `- Resources/... Both executables require the same dependencies (and use the same shared .dylib files built as targets in the same project) so it makes sense for them to be in the same place rather than in their own .app folder as I understand it. Qt Libs -> core_lib.dylib -> gui_lib.dylib -> exec_a `-> exec_b etc. We've confirmed build artifacts are correct and the rpath/dependencies are all clean. When in development, all executables run as expected and we can command exec_a (the executable we're listing in the primary Info.plist) to launch exec_b at any time. Once the bundle is signed, however, we cannot get exec_b to launch in any capacity. Even lldb dies right away because it can't attach to anything. We assume this is something in the gatekeeper area of blocking these additional executables. We get the following when trying to run those additional exes in any way: Trace/BPT trap: 5 We're using macdeployqt to finalize the bundle and bring in the correct packages - perhaps something it's doing is causing the additional executables to fail or we're missing an entitlement. We've submitted the app to TestFlights successfully even with these invalid executables to see if there was something the processing of the app would find but so far nothing. We've seen other example of applications with multiple executables in the same MacOS directory and are wondering what the difference is. Any hints or guidance would be great. Thank you!

I am subscribed to an individual developer license. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/configuring-network-extensions "Network Extension" does not appear in the Capability section in Xcode. Below is my Xcode screenshot.

Hi there! I have an issue with uploading a PKG installer to the MacOS AppStore. Uploading with: xcrun altool --upload-app -t macos -f $PKGPATH -u $DEVELOPER_ID -p $APP_SPECIFIC_PWD results in error: *** Error: Validation failed Invalid Provisioning Profile. The provisioning profile included in the bundle com.frogblue.frogCom [com.frogblue.frogCom.pkg/Payload/frogSIP.app] is invalid. [Missing code-signing certificate.] For more information, visit the macOS Developer Portal. (ID: fc4e5488-6d09-4ab2-b1f7-017a33c69723) (409) Application seems to be correctly code signed with „3rd Party Mac Developer Application“ certificate. codesign -dv --verbose=4 /Users/dietmar.finkler/Desktop/frogSIP/deploy/frogSIP.app Identifier=com.frogblue.frogCom Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=266432 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=8315+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=720896 VersionSDK=918784 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=923de799a54616706b76050b50b7ee6d59f8355a CandidateCDHashFull sha256=923de799a54616706b76050b50b7ee6d59f8355a65aa7cce03e34bb2033da1e9 Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=923de799a54616706b76050b50b7ee6d59f8355a65aa7cce03e34bb2033da1e9 CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=31604736 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=923de799a54616706b76050b50b7ee6d59f8355a Signature size=9109 Authority=3rd Party Mac Developer Application: frogblue TECHNOLOGY GmbH (UG2P6T5LNH) Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=26.02.2025 at 10:07:08 Info.plist entries=31 TeamIdentifier=UG2P6T5LNH Runtime Version=14.5.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=1124 Internal requirements count=1 size=212 The PKG build with productbuild seems also be correctly code signed with„3rd Party Mac Developer Installer“ certificate. pkgutil --check-signature /Users/dietmar.finkler/Desktop/frogSIP/frogSIP-1.2a2.pkg Status: signed by a developer certificate issued by Apple (Development) Certificate Chain: 1. 3rd Party Mac Developer Installer: frogblue TECHNOLOGY GmbH (UG2P6T5LNH) Expires: 2026-02-25 17:17:54 +0000 SHA256 Fingerprint: D1 9E AC 27 C7 26 F3 2E 1E F5 50 2C 7A 1B 1D FB 54 D6 17 C1 1C 58 C1 7E F8 87 B6 44 D1 49 17 DC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Expires: 2030-02-20 00:00:00 +0000 SHA256 Fingerprint: DC F2 18 78 C7 7F 41 98 E4 B4 61 4F 03 D6 96 D8 9C 66 C6 60 08 D4 24 4E 1B 99 16 1A AC 91 60 1F ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Apple Root CA Expires: 2035-02-09 21:40:36 +0000 SHA256 Fingerprint: B0 B1 73 0E CB C7 FF 45 05 14 2C 49 F1 29 5E 6E DA 6B CA ED 7E 2C 68 C5 BE 91 B5 A1 10 01 F0 24 KeyChain login items show both "3rd Party Mac Developer Application" and "3rd Party Mac Developer Installer“ certificates. But checking with security find-identity -v -p codesigning shows only the "3rd Party Mac Developer Application“ certificate. "3rd Party Mac Developer Installer“ is missing. I check also the entitlement in the app package, which looks ok for me. codesign -d --entitlements :- /Users/dietmar.finkler/Desktop/frogSIP/deploy/frogSIP.app <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "https://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"><plist version="1.0"><dict><key>com.apple.application-identifier</key><string>UG2P6T5LNH.com.frogblue.frogCom</string><key>com.apple.developer.aps-environment</key><string>production</string><key>com.apple.developer.associated-domains</key><array><string>applinks:go.dev.frogblue.cloud</string><string>applinks:go.test.frogblue.cloud</string><string>applinks:go.prod.frogblue.cloud</string></array><key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key><string>UG2P6T5LNH</string><key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.device.audio-input</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.device.camera</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.network.client</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.network.server</key><true/></dict></plist> What I am missing? Thanx for any hint! Regards Dietmar Finkler

Hello, I recently had my Electron app notarized by Apple and then performed the following steps: Stapling the Notarization Ticket: xcrun stapler staple "appPath/Aiparalegal.app" Zipping the App for Distribution: ditto -c -k --keepParent "appPath/Aiparalegal.app" theAIParalegal.zip However, after unzipping and attempting to launch the app, macOS displays the following message: Apple could not verify "theAIParalegal" is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy. Yet, when I run validation using: xcrun stapler validate "theAIParalegal.app" I receive confirmation: The validate action worked! I then tried restarting my computer but the problem persist Could you help me understand why the notarization validation appears successful, yet macOS still displays this security warning? Any advice on how to resolve this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Background I've repeatedly run into codesigning (and missing provisioning profile) issues for my Ruby/Glimmer app and am looking for ways to troubleshoot this outside of Xcode. The app structure is as follows: PATHmanager.app └── Contents ├── Info.plist ├── MacOS │   └── PATHmanager ├── PkgInfo ├── Resources │   └── AppIcon.icns ├── _CodeSignature │   └── CodeResources └── embedded.provisionprofile Architecture I have a Mac mini Apple M2 Pro with macOS Ventura 13.4. Xcode is not used directly, but the underlying command line tools (e.g., codesign, productbuild, pkgutil, xcrun) are run from a custom Ruby script. xcodebuild -version Xcode 14.3.1 Build version 14E300c Questions Is the .app directory and file structure/naming sufficient? If not, can you point me in the direction of a minimal example that does not use Xcode? Info.plist is an XML text document (not binary), which I believe is in an acceptable format, but how do I lint this file and determine if it contains all of the necessary key/value pairs? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDevelopmentRegion</key> <string>en</string> <key>CFBundleDisplayName</key> <string>PATH manager</string> <key>CFBundleExecutable</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundleIconFile</key> <string>AppIcon.icns</string> <key>CFBundleIdentifier</key> <string>com.chipcastle.pathmanager</string> <key>CFBundleInfoDictionaryVersion</key> <string>6.0</string> <key>CFBundleName</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundlePackageType</key> <string>APPL</string> <key>CFBundleShortVersionString</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>CFBundleSupportedPlatforms</key> <array> <string>MacOSX</string> </array> <key>CFBundleVersion</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>ITSAppUsesNonExemptEncryption</key> <false/> <key>LSApplicationCategoryType</key> <string>public.app-category.developer-tools</string> <key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key> <string>12.0</string> <key>LSUIElement</key> <false/> <key>NSAppTransportSecurity</key> <dict> <key>NSAllowsArbitraryLoads</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSHumanReadableCopyright</key> <string>© 2025 Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc.</string> <key>NSMainNibFile</key> <string>MainMenu</string> <key>NSPrincipalClass</key> <string>NSApplication</string> </dict> </plist> PATHmanager is a Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 file created by using Tebako. Does this executable need to be codesigned, or is codesigning the .app folder sufficient? Does the .app directory need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app' Does the PATHmanager binary need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements '/Users/chip/Desktop/PATHmanager.entitlements' --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app/Contents/MacOS/PATHmanager' How can I verify what entitlements, if any, are required for codesigning the binary? The PATHmanager.entitlements file is an XML text file containing only the following: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> Is the embedded.provisionprofile necessary, and if so, how do I know determine if it matches the certificate or entitlements that I'm using? Additionally, is it named and located properly? I submitted this to the AppStore several weeks ago and the reviewer reported that the executable would not load on their machine (even though it worked on mine.) Is it better for me to release via TestFlight for testing, and if so, do I need to following a separate process for codesigning (i.e., using different entitlements, profiles, certs, etc) when doing so? I've been playing whack-a-mole with this for too long to mention and am hoping to nail down a better deployment flow, so any suggestions for improvement will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Hello everyone, I'm encountering significant delays with the notarization process for our Electron application using a newly created developer account. The process is taking an unusually long time (1-2 days), which is disrupting our workflow. Details: We've attempted notarization multiple times over the past 2 weeks. The process consistently takes 8+ hours before I typically abort it. (due going offline etc) Interestingly, when I check the notary history later, it shows the notarization was actually successful. Our application package is relatively large, which might be contributing to the delay (archive: 226 mb, app:800mb) Recent Examples: Current submission (still in progress): 52db12c3-4a54-4e14-9d77-e141d7f28227 Previous successful submission: 49273be6-3e13-4f3f-83a4-945114d899b9 Has anyone else experienced similar issues with notarizing applications? Are there any optimizations or best practices I should implement to reduce these processing times? I'm using the default notarization feature that comes with electron forge. Any suggestions or insights would be greatly appreciated!

Displaying attribute for a private key I see a number of applications that are allowed to access it without needing a password e.g. racoon; Keychain Access.app; Certificate Assitant.app etc.. I want to add /usr/bin/codesign to the list but the gui window that pops up when I click on + doesn't seem to allow me to do that :( How do I do it please

Yes, this is very likely the completely wrong way to do things but I would like to ask regardless. Currently with windows/linux I can perform an in-situ upgrade of an application by performing a download of the binary 'foo' and then doing a rename-and-replace and subsequently requesting the licencee to restart the program and all is good. With macOS, as the binary is within the foo.app ( Contents/macOS/foo ) I imagine I cannot perform a similar operation without breaking the signing of the foo.app itself? ....or, can I individually sign the binary foo for macOS and perform the same type of operation? Download new foo as foo.new rename current foo.app/Content/macOS/foo -> foo.old rename foo.new -> foo Restart application Again, I know this is very likely an un-macOS way of performing the task but as you can imagine with supporting cross-platform development it's usually easier to maintain a consistent method even if it's "not ideal".

Hi, I have a project that integrates the Firebase SDK via SPM as a dependency of an internal Swift Package: My app ⟶ My Library ⟶ Firebase SDK The project builds successfully and can be archived locally ✅. The uploaded .ipa is valid and gets published 🚀. However, we are now trying to automate the release process using Xcode Cloud, but the iOS Archive action is failing ❌ on Xcode Cloud. The logs show the following error ⬇️: error: exportArchive codesign command failed (/Volumes/workspace/tmp/XcodeDistPipeline/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~oomCvM/Root/Payload/base-ios.app/Frameworks/FirebaseAnalytics.framework: replacing existing signature /Volumes/workspace/tmp/XcodeDistPipeline/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~oomCvM/Root/Payload/base-ios.app/Frameworks/FirebaseAnalytics.framework: invalid or corrupted code requirement(s) Requirement syntax error(s): line 1:178: unexpected token: <COMPANY_NAME> ) ** EXPORT FAILED ** I have been researching this issue for a while and have tried several solutions to fix it, but with no luck. Even though the error points to a specific library—the Firebase SDK—I don’t believe Firebase is the root cause. There were related issues in the past, but those were already fixed by the Firebase team, and as I mentioned, the project archives correctly when built locally. On the other hand, the error states: line 1:178: unexpected token: <COMPANY_ACRONYM> This makes me wonder if there’s an issue parsing our Team Name during the re-signing process, as it contains special characters ": "name": "Apple Distribution: Company Full Name "COMPANY_ACRONYM""

Hello! I've just recently discovered LaunchCodeRequirement API and I'm exploring how it works compared to existing alternatives available for macOS versions below 14.4. Some questions I have with regards to safety of older and newer APIs examining the given example: func runProcess(executableURL: URL) throws { let process = Process() process.executableURL = executableURL if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { process.launchRequirement = try LaunchCodeRequirement.allOf { ValidationCategory(.developerID) SigningIdentifier("some-signing-identifier") TeamIdentifier("some-team-identifier") } } else { try secStaticCodeCheckValidity(executableURL) // Point #1 } do { try process.run() // Point #2 if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { // process.launchRequirement should take care of the process // and kill it if launchRequirement constraint is not satisfied } else { try secCodeCheckValidity(process.processIdentifier) // Point #3 } process.waitUntilExit() } catch { process.terminate() throw error } // Point #4 guard process.terminationReason == .exit else { throw SomeError() } } let requirement = """ anchor apple generic and identifier = "some-signing-identifier" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] and certificate leaf [subject.OU] = "some-team-identifier" """ func secStaticCodeCheckValidity(_ executableURL: URL) throws { // Init SecStaticCode from `executableURL` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` let flags = SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSBasicValidateOnly) guard SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, flags, secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } func secCodeCheckValidity(_ processIdentifier: Int32) { // Init SecCode from `processIdentifier` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` guard SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, [], secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } Before macOS 14.4+ flow There's still a small chance that between checking executable binary codesign requirement (Point #1) and launched process' one (Point #3) the binary could be replaced with something malicious and even get some CPU between Points #2 and #3 so technically it can't be 100% safe. Is that a correct statement? Any advices on making it safer? macOS 14.4+ flow Now let's see how launchRequirement is better. I guess initialized launchRequirement gets evaluated on running the process (Point #2). What does it exactly check? Executable at URL before launching the process (as OnDiskConstraint) or launched process (as ProcessConstraint)? Is there any chance the process gets some CPU before it's killed in case of failed codesign check? Any way to distinguish between codesign requirement termination and other reasons at point #4? It returns SIGKILL (9) as terminationStatus but it's not precise enough to be sure it was killed due to failed requirement check. I guess newer SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithOnDiskRequirement & SecCodeCheckValidityWithProcessRequirement are the same as SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors & SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors but a little simpler and can't be used as a 'more secure' way of validating codesign requirement. Thanks, Pavel

Hi, I am facing an issue with login persistence using firebase, but basically, it seems that I need to ensure I enable the Keychain Sharing within the Identities capabilities, the problem is, it is not even on the list. Thank you much